The International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart[1](Proletary)

Written:Written at the end of August and beginning of September 1907Published:Published inProletary, No. 17, October 20, 1907.

      Published according to the newspaper text.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 13,

      pages75-81.Translated:Bernard IsaacsTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Afeature of the International Socialist Congress held in Stuttgart this August
was its large and representative composition: the total of 886 delegates came
from all the five continents. Besides providing an impressive demonstration of
international unity in the proletarian struggle, the Congress played an
outstanding part in defining the tactics of the socialist parties. It adopted
general resolutions on a number of questions, the decision of which had
hitherto been left solely to the discretion of the individual socialist
parties. And the fact that more and more problems require uniform, principled
decisions in different countries is striking proof that socialism is being
welded into a single international force.

Thefull text of the Stuttgart resolutions will be found elsewhere in this

issue.[2]We shall deal briefly with each of them in order to bring
out the chief controversial points and the character of the debate at the
Congress.

Thisis not the first time the colonial question has figured at international
congresses. Up till now their decisions have always been an unqualified
condemnation of bourgeois colonial policy as a policy of plunder and
violence. This time, however, the Congress Commission was so composed that
opportunist elements, headed by Van Kol of Holland, predominated in it. A
sentence was inserted in the draft resolution to the effect that the Congress
did not in principle condemn all colonial policy, for under socialism colonial
policy could play a civilising role. The minority in the Commission (Ledebour
of Germany, the Polish and Russian Social-Democrats, and many
others)vigorously protested against any such idea being entertained. The matter
      was referred to Congress, where the forces of the two trends were
      found to be so nearly equal that there was an extremely heated
      debate.

Theopportunists rallied behind Van Kol. Speaking for the majority of the German
delegation Bernstein and David urged acceptance of a “socialist colonial
policy” and fulminated against the radicals for their barren, negative
attitude, their failure to appreciate the importance of reforms, their lack
of a practical colonial programme, etc. Incidentally, they were opposed by
Kautsky, who felt compelled to ask the Congress to pronounceagainstthe majority of the German delegation. He rightly pointed out that there was no
question of rejecting the struggle for reforms; that was explicitly stated in
other sections of the resolution, which had evoked no dispute. The point at
issue was whether we should make concessions to the modern regime of bourgeois
plunder and violence. The Congress was to discuss present-day colonial policy,
which was based on the downright enslavement of primitive populations. The
bourgeoisie was actually introducing slavery in the colonies and subjecting the
native populations to unprecedented outrages and acts of violence,
“civilising” them by the spread of liquor and syphilis. And in that
situation socialists were expected to utter evasive phrases about the
possibility of accepting colonial policy in principle! That would be an outright
desertion to the bourgeois point of view. It would be a decisive step towards
subordinating the proletariat to bourgeois ideology, to bourgeois imperialism,
which is now arrogantly raising its head.

TheCongress defeated the Commission’s motion by 128 votes to 108
with ten abstentions (Switzerland). It should be noted that at Stuttgart,
for the first time, each nation was allotted a definite number of votes,
varying from twenty (for the big nations, Russia included) to two
(Luxembourg). The combined vote of the small nations, which either do not
pursue a colonial policy, or which suffer from it, outweighed, the vote of
nations where even the proletariat has been somewhat infected with the lust
of conquest.

Thisvote on the colonial question is of very great importance. First? it
strikingly showed up socialist opportunism,which succumbs to bourgeois blandishments. Secondly, it revealed a
negative feature in the European labour movement, one that can do no little harm
to the proletarian cause, and for that reason should receive serious
attention. Marx frequently quoted a very significant saying of Sismondi. The
proletarians of the ancient world, this saying runs, lived at the
expense of society; modern society lives at the expense of the

proletarians.[3]

Thenon-propertied, but non-working, class is incapable of overthrowing
the exploiters. Only the proletarian class, which maintains the whole of
society, can bring about the social revolution. However, as a result of the
extensive colonial policy, the European proletarianpartlyfinds
himself in a position when it isnothis labour, but the labour of
the practically enslaved natives in the colonies, that maintains the whole
of society. The British bourgeoisie, for example, derives more profit from
the many millions of the population of India and other colonies than from
the British workers. In certain countries this provides the material and
economic basis for infecting the proletariat with colonial chauvinism. Of
course, this may be only a temporary phenomenon, but the evil must
nonetheless be clearly realised and its causes understood in order to be
able to rally the proletariat of all countries for the struggle against
such opportunism. This struggle is bound to be victorious, since the
“privileged” nations are a diminishing faction of the
capitalist nations.

Therewere practically no differences at the Congress on the question
of women’s suffrage. The only one who tried to make out a case for a
socialist campaign in favour of a limited women’s suffrage
(qualified as opposed to universal suffrage) was a woman delegate from the
extremely opportunist British Fabian Society. No one supported her. Her
motives were simple enough: British bourgeois ladies hope to obtain the
franchise for themselves, without its extension to women workers in
Britain.

TheFirst International Socialist Women’s Conference was held
concurrently with the Congress in the same building. Both at this
Conference and in the Congress Commission there was an interesting dispute
between the German and Austrian Social-Democrats on the draft
resolution. Intheir campaign for universal suffrage the Austrians tended to play down the
demand for equal rights of men and women; on practical grounds they placed
the main emphasis on male suffrage. Clara Zetkin and other German
Social-Democrats rightly pointed out to the Austrians that they were acting
incorrectly, and that by failing to press the demand that the vote be
granted to Women as well as men, they were weakening the mass movement. The
concluding words of the Stuttgart resolution (“the demand for
universal suffrage should be put forwardsimultaneouslyfor both
men and women”) undoubtedly relate to this episode of excessive
“practicalism” in the history of the Austrian labour movement.

Theresolution on the relations between the socialist parties and the trade
unions is of especial importance to us Russians. The
Stockholm. R.S.D.L.P. Congress went on record fornon-Partyunions,
thus endorsing the neutrality standpoint, which has always been upheld by our
non-Party democrats, Bernsteinians and Socialist-Revolutionaries. The London
Congress, on the other hand, put for ward a different principle, namely, closer
alignment of the unions with the Party, even including, under certain
conditions, their recognition as Party unions. At Stuttgart in the
Social-Democratic subsection of the Russian section (the socialists of each
country form a separate section at international congresses) opinion was divided
on this issue (there was no split on other issues). Plekhanov upheld the
neutrality principle.

Voinov,[4]a Bolshevik, defended the anti-neutralist
viewpoint of the London Congress and of the Belgian resolution (published in the
Congress materials with de Brouckère’s report, which will soon appear in
Russian). Clara Zetkin rightly remarked in her journalDie Gleichheit[5]that Plekhanov’s arguments for neutrality were just as lame as those of
the French. And the Stuttgart resolution—as Kautsky rightly observed and
as anyone who takes the trouble to read it carefully will see—puts an end
to recognition of the “neutrality” principle. There is not a word in
it about neutrality or non-party principles. On the contrary, it definitely
recognises the need for closer and stronger connections between the unions and
the socialist parties.

Theresolution of the London R.S.D:L.P. Congress on the trade unions has thus
been placed on a firm theoretical basis in the form of the Stuttgart
resolution. The Stuttgart resolution lays down the general principle that. in
every country the unions must be brought into permanent and close contact with
the socialist party. The London resolution says that in Russia this should take
the form, under favourable conditions, of party unions, and party members must
work towards that goal.

Wenote that the harmful aspects of the neutrality principle were revealed in
Stuttgart by the fact that the trade-union half of the German delegation were
the most adamant supporters of opportunist views. That is why in Essen, for
example, the Germans were against Van Kol (the trade unions were not
represented in Essen, which was a Congress solely of the Party), while in
Stuttgart they supported him. By playing into the hands of the opportunists in
the Social-Democratic movement the advocacy of neutrality in Germany hasactuallyhad harmful results. This is a fact that should not be
overlooked, especially in Russia, where the bourgeois-democratic counsellors of
the proletariat, who urge it to keep the trade-union movement
“neutral”, are so numerous.

Afew words about the resolution on emigration and immigration. Here,
too, in the Commission there was an attempt to defend narrow, craft
interests, to ban the immigration of workers from backward countries
(coolies—from China, etc.). This is the same spirit of aristocratism
that one finds among workers in some of the “civilised”
countries, who derive certain advantages from their privileged position,
and are, therefore, inclined to forget the need for international class
solidarity. But no one at the Congress defended this craft and
petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness. The resolution fully meets the demands
of revolutionary Social-Democracy.

Wepass now to the last, and perhaps the most important, resolution of
the Congress—that on anti-militarism. The notorious Hervé, who
has made such a noise in France and Europe, advocated a semi-anarchist view
by naively suggesting that every war be “answered” by a strike
and an uprising. He did not understand, on the one
hand, thatwar is a necessary product of capitalism, and that the proletariat
      cannot renounce participation in revolutionary wars, for such wars
      are possible, and have indeed occurred in capitalist societies. He
      did not understand, on the other hand, that the possibility of
      “answering” a war depends on the nature of the crisis
      created by that war. The choice of the means of struggle depends on
      these conditions; moreover, the struggle must consist (and here we
      have the third misconception, or shallow thinking of Hervéism)
      not simply in replacing war by peace, but in replacing capitalism by
      socialism. The essential thing is not merely to prevent war, but to
      utilise the crisis created by war in order to has ten the overthrow
      of the bourgeoisie. However, underlying all these semi-anarchist
      absurdities of Hervéism there was one sound and practical purpose: to
      spur the socialist movement so that it will not be restricted to
      parliamentary methods of struggle alone, so that the masses will
      realise the need for revolutionary action in connection with the
      crises which war inevitably involves, so that, lastly, a more lively
      understanding of international labour solidarity and of the falsity
      of bourgeois patriotism will be spread among the masses.

Bebel’sresolution (move.d by the Germans and coinciding in all essentials
with Guesde’s resolution) had one shortcoming—it failed to indicate
the active tasks of the proletariat. This made it possible to read Bebel’s
orthodox propositions through opportunist spectacles, and Vollmar was quick to
turn this possibility into a reality.

Thatis why Rosa Luxemburg and the Russian Social-Democratic delegates moved
their amendments to Bebel’s resolution. These amendments

(1) stated that militarism is the chief weapon of class oppression;

(2) pointed out the need for propaganda among the youth;

(3) stressed that Social-Democrats should not only try to prevent war from
breaking out or to secure the speediest termination of wars that have
already begun, but should utilise the crisis created by the war to hasten
the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

Thesubcommission (elected by the Anti-Militarism Commission)
incorporated all these amendments in Bebel’s resolution. In addition,
Jaurès made this happy suggestion: instead of enumerating the
methods of struggle(strikes, uprisings) the resolution should cite historical examples of
proletarian action against war, from the demonstrations in Europe to the
revolution in Russia. The result of all this redrafting was a resolution
which, it is true, is unduly long, but is rich in thought and precisely
formulates the tasks of the proletariat. It combines the stringency of
orthodox—i. e., the only scientific Marxist analysis with
recommendations for the most resolute and revolutionary action by the
workers’ parties. This resolution cannot be interpretedà
laVollmar, nor can it be fitted into the narrow framework of
naïve Hervéism.

Onthe whole, the Stuttgart Congress brought into sharp contrast the
opportunist and revolutionary wings of the international Social-Democratic
movement on a number of cardinal issues and decided these issues in the
spirit of revolutionary Marxism. Its resolutions and the report of the
debates should become a handbook for every propagandist. The work done at
Stuttgart will greatly promote the unity of tactics and unity of
revolutionary struggle of the proletarians of all countries.

[1]TheInternational Socialist Congress In Stuttgart(the Seventh
Congress of the Second International) was held from August 18 to 24 (new
style), 1907. The R.S.D.L.P. was represented at it by 37 delegates. Among
the Bolshevik delegates attending the Congress were Lenin, Lunacharsky, and
Litvinov. The Congress considered the following questions:

1) Militarism and international conflicts;

2) Relations between the political parties and the trade unions;

3) The colonial question;

4) Immigration and emigration of workers, and

5) Women’s suffrage.

Themain work of the Congress was in the committees, where resolutions
were drafted for the plenary sessions. Lenin was on the “Militarism
and International Conflicts” Committee.

[2]Theissue ofProletary(No. 17) which published this article
also contained the resolution of the International Socialist Congress in
Stuttgart.

[3]SeeKarl Marx,Capital, Vol. 1, Moscow, p. 595.

[4]Voinov—A. V. Lunacharsky.

[5]DieGleichheit(Equality)—a Social-Democratic
fortnightly journal, organ of the German women’s movement (later it
became the organ of international women’s movement), published in
Stuttgart from 1890 to 1925 and edited by Clara Zetkin from 1892 to
1917.